One Year After Air India Crash, Key Questions Still Unanswered

Tue Jun 16 2026 03:56:41 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

A year on from the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight 171, investigators still grapple with engine power loss, mysterious fuel‑switch movements and a tangled trail of evidence.

The fatal fall of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner on June 12 last year left 260 dead and a probing investigation still at a standstill. Early reports flagged sudden fuel‑control switch movements that cut engine power, sparking speculation of deliberate action in the cockpit. Yet expert analysis questions mechanical failure, crossover of backup systems and possible electrical faults. With racing timelines, politics, and unresolved technical data, the final report remains months away, keeping families and the public in suspense.

One Year After Air India Crash, Key Questions Still Unanswered

The Boeing 787 that crashed into Ahmedabad’s Khelgaon medical college in 2025 has left 260 people dead and a report still pending. 12 days after take‑off the aircraft lost both engines, and investigators have zeroed in on a sudden shift of the fuel‑control switches to the 'cut‑off' position. Yet the exact cause—whether the pilots moved the switches, a mechanical failure, or an electrical glitch—remains unsettled.

Fuel‑switch mystery

The switches are designed to stop fuel flow only during engine start, after landing or in emergencies. Their abrupt transition seconds after lift‑off is highly suspect. Some experts argue that this movement could be the human “dual‑engine failure” protocol—shifting both switches to trim engines down and then back up—while others insist such an unlikely scenario would require a one‑in‑a‑trillion chance of simultaneous fault.

The Ram Air Turbine debate

Preliminary data placed the RAT deployment within five seconds of the fuel cut‑off. Flight‑deck simulators, however, run the sequence in 14–18 seconds. If the RAT launched earlier, this could mean the engines had already power‑lost, possibly pushing the RAT into action before a proper shutdown.

Engine fail‑over investigation

Both GE dual‑fuselage engines were relatively young—built in 2012 and 2013—and within the expected lifespan. Still, no definitive mechanical failure has been identified. A major electrical reboot could have mis‑identified the aircraft as grounded, triggering an automatic fuel cut‑off without a physical switch movement. That hypothesis remains unproven.

Why the delay?

Quality‑controlled data from flight recorders, engine logs, maintenance records and human factors still need to be correlated. International rules allow extended time for such exhaustive work. Meanwhile, the public and stakeholders are fighting for clarity—families want answers, pilots defend reputations, airlines protect safety records, and governments guard national aviation confidence.

The final report

Drawing from similar 10‑plus‑year delays in past major crashes, authorities must optimize data extraction without prejudging. The outcome will determine whether this tragedy stems from a human decision or unavoidable machine fault, and will shape next‑generation safety protocols.